Billionaires Beware Kpete wants you.

[zeitgeist]

Ride the tiger now, feed the tiger later Mr Soros, a mob of libs is little better than a hungry tiger when you fall out of favor they will pick you cleaner than a school of pariah.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1014375143

kpete (37,751 posts)
 
Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty (100 richest earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty)
Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:15 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Source: Aljazeera 

Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty
UK-based charity says the world's 100 richest people earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty four times over.

The world's 100 richest people earned enough money last year to end world extreme poverty four times over, according to a new report released by international rights group and charity Oxfam.

The $240 billion net income of the world's 100 richest billionaires would have ended poverty four times over, according to the London-based group's report released on Saturday.

............................

The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process.

"We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera.

Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/01/201312061337695543.html
________________________________________

http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf

1. Title
 
Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:10 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
the title of the article should read: Oxfam says world's rich could end poverty
This was also posted yesterday in Good Reads. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101653512

Response to kpete (Original post)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:27 AM
DeSwiss (16,268 posts)
2. This reminds me of those scientific studies we've all seen.....
 
...confirming the obvious, such as water is wet. Very, very wet.

 - K&R
''I don't understand why we have to pay to live on the planet we were born on. I mean it's such a simple question. But can anyone answer that? Why does anyone have to pay to live on the planet they were born on? Ask yourself that question. And who are we actually paying for the privilege to live here? Who decided this? Who made "them" the boss? Who put "them" in-charge?'' ~Alex Collier

Response to kpete (Original post)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:32 AM
 Blanks (950 posts)
3. People don't eat money.
 
We're looking at it wrong if we think the world can be fed with money.

If the world has the resources to feed the hungry we should be feeding the hungry.

The wealthy are standing in the way of the fact that too many people have too little to eat, but it's the allocation of resources that's the problem and not the distribution of wealth. We aren't looking at money's role in the world properly if we think it takes money to feed people.

Response to Blanks (Reply #3)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:32 PM
Igel (17,300 posts)
6. Right premise.
Wrong conclusion.
It takes money to feed people. Money is how we determine the allocation of resources. To a first approximation, it says how important your activities are to the population or some important subcohort of the population.

That's the problem. We've seen that when you increase income you push people to eat more meat, use more electricity. The supply isn't always there, so at a fairly low point more money yields higher prices to continue to allocate resources. More meat and energy resources would go to the newly richer countries, but it wouldn't be the facile and vapid conclusion from Oxfam. They know better; but they assume that Oxfam listeners and newspaper readers are low information people who need simplistic utterances.

Import/export restrictions also help to artificially determine the allocation of resources.

An analogous reason that prices would increase also has nothing to do with global supply but with supply routes. If suddenly a series of small villages in rural Africa (or Kansas) had a demand for 20 MW electricity and 90 thousand land lines, plus high-speed internet they couldn't buy it at almost any price. They lack transmission lines and fibre optic cables (they'd have to go with nifty new high-speed Internet broadcast protocols, but they really are new for the highest speeds--announced by the US military in just the last few weeks).

Then again, all the infrastructure goes back to supply. There can be a shortage because a good doesn't exist; there can be a shortage because (as import/export restrictions already entail) of supply capabilities.

Conclusion: Take all the billionaire's wealth and redistribute it, in addition to some economic dislocation from having their wealth repurposed it also wouldn't yield the glorious results Oxfam imagines. A lie in pursuit of a greater good is still a lie.

Response to Igel (Reply #6)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:19 PM
John2 (987 posts)
7. I don't have
 
Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:30 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
a belief in this philosophy whatsoever. Money is the creation of man not God or nature. It has no purpose at all but to put a title on this planet's resources for control of them. I do have a belief in God, and this Earth's resources were placed here for the use of all God's creations. Man created money because of Greed. I think that is being played out.

Indians had no need for money. There was Buffalo all over this country before the white man arrive. Buffalo was seen as food and clothing for Indians. They used that creature for all sorts of necessities before that creature got slaughtered for sport. The Indians didn't put titles on their land either until the white man put titles on land.

Wars for resources also cause poverty and you also have the destruction of wildlife, and the Earth's resources by the wealthy that own oil companies seeking profits. There is a battle going on with environmentalists. This Planet does have enough resources to feed its people. A lot of those resources are owned by a few and wasted also because of Greed and wanting power over others. Other than religion and racism, it is why we have Wars. A small group of people wants to own more resources than they can use to survive. They see that as status in society over others. They will never take it to the Grave or if there is a heaven, they will never take it with them. Instead they choose to pass it to their kin. There are some people who do not see the need to own more than they need. I don't think they would know what to do with Billions of dollars.

Furthermore, The United States has over 450 Billionaires in this country. There is not one country in this entire World even close to the number of Billionaires the U.S. has. We also have over four million millionaires in this country alone. Millions more, not hundreds or even thousands more than the next country. That is why I find the arguments over this country's deficit disingenuous from the wealthy class of this country. They not only hoard the resources in this country but also over the World's other countries. That is why we have a massive military and this World's economy depends on us. Goldman Sach's and J.P. Morgan both had ties in the Greek Economy. They not only control resources but they control economies. For example, Mitt Romney has investments in companies of other countries besides this one and so does many of these Billionaires. Take the B.P. Oil company for example and their operations in Algeria. It is a modern day mercantilism just like in the days of the slave trade. There has always been man's greed.

Response to kpete (Original post)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:36 AM
think (1,880 posts)
4. Sad commentary on the state of the world. But yet hopeful
 
if one considers that ending poverty could happen if the powers that be choose to focus our resources in this direction.

From military & security budgets that dwarf reality to a failed war on drugs; money is being wasted to the detriment of the greater society.

Oxfam claims just the income from the world's richest people in 2012, a total of $240 billion net income, could end extreme global poverty four times over.
And then there is this from the article:
According to Oxfam's figures, as much as $32 trillion is currently stored in tax havens.
Some day the wealthy of this world will see the fallacy of believing that there is never enough for everyone, realize they can keep their riches, and let the people of earth live a decent life too. The two goals are not mutally exclusive if one considers the financial numbers given by Oxfam as basis as to how little it would actually take to achieve a massive paradigm shift in human existence.

Obviously just my opinion....

Swords to plowshares/ Tanks to Tractors

Response to kpete (Original post)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:44 AM
bananas (19,306 posts)
5. k&r nt

Response to kpete (Original post)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:30 PM
hughee99 (9,532 posts)
8. $240 billion will end WORLD poverty four times over?
We spent $75 billion in the US alone on food stamps and that didn't even wipe out hunger here, let alone global poverty.

Response to hughee99 (Reply #8)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:58 PM
 daleo (19,679 posts)
10. They are referring to extreme poverty in the third world
Poverty in the developed world is quite different, it seems to me. Though there are some bitterly impoverished people in the developed world.

Yeah well there is that I guess.

[NHSparky]

What these DUmmies don't realize that is if ALL the wealth in the world were evenly spread out, each person would have an estate of about $11,000. 

Uh, yeah.  No.

[thundley4]

What these DUmmies don't realize that is if ALL the wealth in the world were evenly spread out, each person would have an estate of about $11,000. 

Uh, yeah.  No.

And all that money would eventually work it's way back into the hands of a few (million) people, and the poor would once again be poor.

[franksolich]

Well, I think anybody with a spread like this, if sharing the wealth, if not ending global poverty, could at least end poverty in San Diego:

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yeah, world 'Extreme Poverty' - you know what that means?  That means the Obamaphone asswipes with cars and EBT cards would be regarded as upper middle class, and every last penny of that money would go Africa and Asia.  If you want to help world hunger, outlaw using cereal grains for biofuel.

[franksolich]

Yeah, world 'Extreme Poverty' - you know what that means?  That means the Obamaphone asswipes with cars and EBT cards would be regarded as upper middle class, and every last penny of that money would go Africa and Asia.  If you want to help world hunger, outlaw using cereal grains for biofuel.

I think the rich bitch needs to be reminded that every journey starts with one small step.

She's "concerned" about global poverty; perhaps she could be the first to share, blazing a trail for the rest of us to follow.

[JohnnyReb]

We've spent 16 trillion dollars ($16,000,000,000) in 40+ years to end poverty in the USA. That's about an average of over 400 billion per year.

DUmmie math strikes again.

[67 Rover]

Indians had no need for money. There was Buffalo all over this country before the white man arrive. Buffalo was seen as food and clothing for Indians. They used that creature for all sorts of necessities before that creature got slaughtered for sport. The Indians didn't put titles on their land either until the white man put titles on land.

Uh Oh does this mean that fauxcahontis Warren may be looking for reparations in the near future?

[jukin]

This confuses me because the federal government alone spends $1 trillion on welfare each year or four times the amount needed to end world poverty. How do the sub 80 IQers at the DUmp explain that? I guess our welfare recipients are four times greedier than the billionaires are.

[NHSparky]

Uh Oh does this mean that fauxcahontis Warren may be looking for reparations in the near future?

Someone, and I forget who/where/when, said if you want to see the Welfare State in 100 years, look at any Indian reservation.

Hell of a point there.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Indians had no need for money. There was Buffalo all over this country before the white man arrive. Buffalo was seen as food and clothing for Indians. They used that creature for all sorts of necessities before that creature got slaughtered for sport. The Indians didn't put titles on their land either until the white man put titles on land.

They did however have a system of trade, didn't hung herds of buffalo until the Spanish introduced the horse, the buffalo herds were mainly on the plains west of the Mississippi, east of the Rockies, and north of Texas, and they would happily kill anyone they caught trespassing on what they regarded as their own tribe's turf.  Life wasn't simpler or less dangerous for them, it was just different.